Why do some countries have stricter penalties for drunk drivers than the US?

[81+]

Why do we in the US put up with drunk and/or stoned drivers? These people take lives and disable people with virtual impunity ---- and the rest of us just look the other way. We've all read about people who have 10, 20 or more arrests for DUI and we do nothing. What's wrong with us? In Norway, for instance, one DUI conviction and you loose your driver's license PERMANENTLY. Why are we in the US this way?

Frank

 

[Evo]

Why do we in the US put up with drunk and/or stoned drivers? These people take lives and disable people with virtual impunity ---- and the rest of us just look the other way. We've all read about people who have 10, 20 or more arrests for DUI and we do nothing. What's wrong with us? In Norway, for instance, one DUI conviction and you loose your driver's license PERMANENTLY. Why are we in the US this way?

Frank

Most of those people with multiple DUI's are driving without a license. My understanding is that the penalty for DUI has increased severely, at least it has in my state. I believe that a first offense will result in a two year suspension of your driver's license, even if you have the charges dropped through a diversion program (this was on the radio the other day) and a second offense carries automatic jail time.

This doesn't stop the fools from getting back into a car though.

 

[NeoDevin]

This doesn't stop the fools from getting back into a car though.

Capital punishment for DUI might. (at the very least, it would stop repeat offenders)

 

[Moonbear]

Why do we in the US put up with drunk and/or stoned drivers? These people take lives and disable people with virtual impunity ---- and the rest of us just look the other way. We've all read about people who have 10, 20 or more arrests for DUI and we do nothing. What's wrong with us? In Norway, for instance, one DUI conviction and you loose your driver's license PERMANENTLY. Why are we in the US this way?

Frank

What makes you think they have licenses and haven't spent time in jail? I agree, we should be raising the penalties more and more severely on repeated offenses, but it's not true that nothing is being done. Perhaps the change needs to be that once someone has 2 offenses, any repeated offenses after that (presumably while driving on a suspended license) should include prison time in years equal to the number of repeated offenses (i.e., if you are on your third offense, get 3 years, get out and do it again, get 4 years...at least until they end up with the vehicular manslaughter charges to put them away longer).

 

[Gokul43201]

Jail time of n years is weak. I propose 2^n-1-1 years.

 

[wolram]

What makes you think they have licenses and haven't spent time in jail? I agree, we should be raising the penalties more and more severely on repeated offenses, but it's not true that nothing is being done. Perhaps the change needs to be that once someone has 2 offenses, any repeated offenses after that (presumably while driving on a suspended license) should include prison time in years equal to the number of repeated offenses (i.e., if you are on your third offense, get 3 years, get out and do it again, get 4 years...at least until they end up with the vehicular manslaughter charges to put them away longer).

The only problem with jail time is having the capacity to store all the prisoners, and you tax $s
to keep them, hit them where it hurts with a big stick.

 

[tribdog]

Here in Arizona they just throw you into tent city and feed you green baloney. Costs less than a dollar a day per prisoner.

 

[quadraphonics]

Why do we in the US put up with drunk and/or stoned drivers?

You should not equate driving stoned with driving drunk:

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc/driving/s1p2.htm

Tired drivers probably kill many more people each year than stoned drivers do.

 

[Evo]

You should not equate driving stoned with driving drunk:

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc/driving/s1p2.htm

Tired drivers probably kill many more people each year than stoned drivers do.

According to this "test", they hardly smoked anything at all.

Methods

Twenty-four subjects, equally comprised of men and women, participated in this study. They were allowed to smoke part or all of the THC content in three cigarettes until achieving the desired psychological effect. The only requirement was to smoke for a period not exceeding 15 minutes. When subjects voluntarily stopped smoking, cigarettes were carefully extinguished and retained for subsequent gravimetric estimation of the amount of THC consumed.

Growing up in the 60's and 70's I can tell you that the people that got "stoned" smoked for hours. Ever been in a car with someone that's really stoned that's been smoking for hours? I have. They run red lights and stop signs because they didn't notice them, they run up on the curb and over esplanades, they drive on the wrong side of the street and swerve a lot. They lose track of how fast they are going sometimes speeding while nodding out and other times barely moving at all and not realizing it.

http://www.nida.nih.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html

 

[tribdog]

yeah, once, back in my college days I stopped at a red light, unfortunately I was still a block away.

 

[Evo]

yeah, once, back in my college days I stopped at a red light, unfortunately I was still a block away.

Yeah, you could always tell (aside from the smell of pot and smoke pouring out of the car) when you saw someone cruising along at 23MPH in a 45 MPH zone, straddling the middle lane and hitting the brakes at totally inappropriate times.

 

[Astronuc]

According to this "test", they hardly smoked anything at all.

Growing up in the 60's and 70's I can tell you that the people that got "stoned" smoked for hours. Ever been in a car with someone that's really stoned that's been smoking for hours? I have. They run red lights and stop signs because they didn't notice them, they run up on the curb and over esplanades, they drive on the wrong side of the street and swerve a lot. They lose track of how fast they are going sometimes speeding while nodding out and other times barely moving at all and not realizing it.

http://www.nida.nih.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html

Not only did they not ingest a lot, the statistical population is only 24 - not sufficient to make a strong case, IMO.

I also knew some people like Evo described. One in particular misjudged a 15 mph curve and took it at > 45 mph. He flipped the car on its side and is slip right between 2 trees. Fortunately, there were not pedestrians in that spot.

PF doesn't condone the use of illegal drugs, and if one does, stay home and don't go out and endanger the public.

My wife used to counsel alcoholics and drug abusers who have been arrested DUI/DWI among other things. Very few were remorseful or contrite about their behavior. Their main concern was to be able to drive again, and many had multiple violations. The legal system was cracking down more so on those who were stoned that those who were intoxicated. I do seem to remember a few cases of drunk drivers killing themselves and/or others - even after multiple violations. There was apparently some leniency because they are frequently the primary income source for a family.

I fully support stiff penalties for people who endanger the lives and welfare of others.

 

[quadraphonics]

According to this "test", they hardly smoked anything at all.

No offence, but you don't know what you're talking about. I guarantee you that 15 minutes with three "marijuana cigarettes" per person will result in the people being about as intoxicated as it is possible to become via smoking marijuana. One "marijuana cigarette" is enough to get 3-4 people stoned, in well under 15 minutes.

Growing up in the 60's and 70's I can tell you that the people that got "stoned" smoked for hours.

Growing up in the 90's and 00's (a period in which marijuana use amongst under-30 age group is comparable to the 1960's and 1970's rates), I can tell you that that is neither here nor there. It's not like drinking where you do it continuously for hours on end, getting steadily more intoxicated. You're as high as you're going to get within minutes of smoking. Everything after that is just to maintain the initial high.

Ever been in a car with someone that's really stoned that's been smoking for hours?

Yes, many times. I have also been in cars with people that are really stoned, and are smoking while driving. Never once has it come anywhere close to being as frightening as riding with someone who is drunk, or tired, or even with people who are just bad drivers. I can't think of a single time where it's aroused even the slightest anxiety in me. There are people who I would worry more about riding with if they *weren't* stoned, though.

I have. They run red lights and stop signs because they didn't notice them, they run up on the curb and over esplanades, they drive on the wrong side of the street and swerve a lot. They lose track of how fast they are going sometimes speeding while nodding out and other times barely moving at all and not realizing it.

It sounds like your pals consumed more than just marijuana, but I can assure you that this experience is not typical.

 

[Evo]

Quadrphonics, we don't condone or encourage illegal drugs or drug abuse here and such discussions are not allowed. I refer you to the link I posted above.

Not surprisingly, marijuana intoxication can cause distorted perceptions, impaired coordination, difficulty in thinking and problem solving, and problems with learning and memory. Research has shown that marijuana’s adverse impact on learning and memory can last for days or weeks after the acute effects of the drug wear off.2 As a result, someone who smokes marijuana every day may be functioning at a suboptimal intellectual level all of the time.

Q: How does marijuana affect driving?
A: Marijuana affects many skills required for safe driving: alertness, concentration, coordination, and reaction time. Marijuana use can make it difficult to judge distances and react to signals and sounds on the road.


Marijuana may play a role in car accidents. In one study conducted in Memphis, TN, researchers found that, of 150 reckless drivers who were tested for drugs at the arrest scene, 33 percent tested positive for marijuana, and 12 percent tested positive for both marijuana and cocaine (1). Data have also shown that while smoking marijuana, people show the same lack of coordination on standard "drunk driver" tests as do people who have had too much to drink

(8) Liguori, A.; Gatto, C. P.; and Robinson, J. H. Effects of marijuana on equilibrium. psychomotor performance, and simulated driving. Behavioral Pharmacology, 9:599-609, 1998.

http://www.nida.nih.gov/MarijBroch/teenpg11-12.html#driving

 

[BobG]

I like the interlocks they're starting to use here in Colorado for repeat offenders and/or particularly high BAC. The driver has to pass a breath test to start their car, plus the device pops up with random breath test requirements while driving. They have a few minutes (don't know exactly how many) to pull over and take another breath test or take it at the next red light. They don't actually have to shut the engine off to take the random tests. The random tests just mean the driver can't spoof the system by having someone else take the test for them unless the someone else is dumb enough to ride along with a drunk driver taking their breath tests for them.

If they fail three tests in a row, the car is completely disabled and has to be towed to the installation center so they can unlock it. Plus all of the failures, aborted tests, and passed tests are stored in the device's history and can be used as evidence that the driver violated the terms of their probation, suspended sentence, etc.

The driver rents the interlock device for however long the judge requires them to use the device, so it doesn't cost the taxpayer. The normal time to use the device is around a year to two years.

You would think the cost alone would deter a lot of folks from being repeat offenders. A first offense winds up costing nearly $10,000 by time you take into account increased insurance rates, lawyer fees, and fines. The fact that it doesn't probably indicates how often drivers are able to avoid being pulled over in the first place. Drivers just don't think they're going to get caught.

 

[quadraphonics]

Quadrphonics, we don't condone or encourage illegal drugs or drug abuse here and such discussions are not allowed.

I don't see how presenting accurate information and discouraging mis/disinformation amounts to "condoning or encouraging" anything. In the long run, exaggerating or misrepresenting the dangers of any behavior only makes people more likely to engage in it, and that without accurate information.

I refer you to the link I posted above.

And I again refer you to the first link I posted, which was undertaken exactly to test, scientifically, whether said effects actually translate into increased risks while driving. And it turns out that they do not, validating decades of user experience. The reason is that, unlike with alcohol, stoned drivers remain aware of their impairments and so compensate for them. As has been noted in this thread, the steretypical stoned driver is someone moving suspiciously slowly. Contrast this with the prototypical drunk driver, whose dangers are rather self-evident. Drunk driving produces 10's of thousands of fatalities in the United States every year. Stoned driving, on the other hand? Can anyone even point to a proven fatality? Thus, equating the two is preposterous. Which is exactly why drunk driving is a serious policy priority in most states/municipalities, while stoned driving is not. Other driving behaviors that are significantly riskier than stoned driving: talking on a cell phone, driving while tired, or racing on public streets.

 

[Evo]

I don't see how presenting accurate information and discouraging mis/disinformation amounts to "condoning or encouraging" anything. In the long run, exaggerating or misrepresenting the dangers of any behavior only makes people more likely to engage in it, and that without accurate information.

It was explained to you why your link was not a scientifically valid sample as there were only 24 subjects. The information I posted to was ACTUAL reckless drivers, not some controlled study in The Netherlands.

 

[Moonbear]

You should not equate driving stoned with driving drunk:

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc/driving/s1p2.htm

Tired drivers probably kill many more people each year than stoned drivers do.

Actually, as I read through that article (that one is not from a peer-reviewed source, however), there is a table near the end summarizing the results where very few parameters are different between the drivers who consumed alcohol and those who used marijuana.

Here is a study where that same author is a co-author and published in a peer-reviewed journal (link is to the abstract on the publisher's site; you need a library subscription to view the entire article):
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/74000373/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

 

[Moonbear]

It was explained to you why your link was not a scientifically valid sample as there were only 24 subjects.

Why would that make it not scientifically valid? If the number of subjects was sufficient to detect significant differences for what they were measuring, then it is valid. I'm more concerned that non-peer-reviewed sources are being posted here when the same authors have perfectly good articles on the subject in peer-reviewed journals. (The one in the link may not have made it through peer review because of the ethical considerations of risking harm to the subjects or other drivers putting them out on real roads with other drivers when their driving impairment was being tested.)

 

[chroot]

Growing up in the 60's and 70's I can tell you that the people that got "stoned" smoked for hours.

Growing up in the 80's and 90's, I can tell you that being stoned for hours does not require smoking for hours. Some people can get obliterated in just a couple puffs, which takes no more than a minute. Like alcohol, the effects can last hours. Stop attacking strawmen, Evo. I expect more of you.

- Warren

 

[Moonbear]

Growing up in the 80's and 90's, I can tell you that being stoned for hours does not require smoking for hours. Some people can get obliterated in just a couple puffs, which takes no more than a minute. Like alcohol, the effects can last hours. Stop attacking strawmen, Evo. I expect more of you.

- Warren

An habitual smoker may not have as much effect of a low dose as an occasional smoker either. You're correct to point out there are different effects of the same "dose" of alcohol on individuals, and the same would apply to marijuana smoking. Someone who rarely drinks might get "buzzed" and have impaired driving after one beer, while someone who drinks often might be able to consume 3 or 4 beers before getting to that same level of impairment. But, it wouldn't be a particularly well-controlled study to give everyone different doses.

 

[chroot]

Moonbear,

My point is simply that "15 minutes of smoking" is absolutely not "hardly anything at all," as Evo tried to claim.

- Warren

 

[Moonbear]

Moonbear,

My point is simply that "15 minutes of smoking" is absolutely not "hardly anything at all," as Evo tried to claim.

- Warren

Oh, I missed her trying to claim that. I agree. The duration really isn't relevant anyway, because the studies are varying the doses of THC, which is the active ingredient, in the marijuana cigarettes anyway. It's sort of a "spiked" dose anyway.

 

[Evo]

Moonbear,

My point is simply that "15 minutes of smoking" is absolutely not "hardly anything at all," as Evo tried to claim.

- Warren

But 15 minutes was the longest, not that everyone had to smoke for 15 minutes and they had a choice of smoking 1-3 joints. As a matter of fact the "test" only had one requirement "The only requirement was to smoke for a period not exceeding 15 minutes.".

I will retract my anecdotal remarks based on my experiences. But if you look at the links I posted, marijuana does not wear off quickly and for a regular user the effects can be accumulative and the effects more pronounced with longer use. So someone smoking for a few minutes and someone that does it on a regular basis won't be the same.

Not surprisingly, marijuana intoxication can cause distorted perceptions, impaired coordination, difficulty in thinking and problem solving, and problems with learning and memory. Research has shown that marijuana’s adverse impact on learning and memory can last for days or weeks after the acute effects of the drug wear off.2 As a result, someone who smokes marijuana every day may be functioning at a suboptimal intellectual level all of the time.

 

[Evo]

Why would that make it not scientifically valid?

That was Astonuc I was quoting.

 

[Evo]

Actually, as I read through that article (that one is not from a peer-reviewed source, however), there is a table near the end summarizing the results where very few parameters are different between the drivers who consumed alcohol and those who used marijuana.

Here is a study where that same author is a co-author and published in a peer-reviewed journal (link is to the abstract on the publisher's site; you need a library subscription to view the entire article):
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/74000373/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Can you quote the abstract? The link has expired.

 

[LowlyPion]

I will retract my anecdotal remarks based on my experiences.

Don't tell me you went cross country with Cheech and Chong in an ice cream truck.

 

[quadraphonics]

It was explained to you why your link was not a scientifically valid sample as there were only 24 subjects. The information I posted to was ACTUAL reckless drivers, not some controlled study in The Netherlands.

The information you posted had only 150 drivers, and did not distinguish between "testing positive for" and actually being under the influence of marijuana, nor does it separate those who tested positive for marijuana from those who tested positive for alcohol and other drugs. All it shows is that 50 reckless drivers had smoked marijuana some time in the month prior to their arrest (which is to say that the odds are very good that a given reckless driver is *not* a marijuana user, and overwhelmingly good that said driver is not stoned at the time). Even if these glaring methodological errors were corrected, the result would only show that reckless drivers are slightly more likely to be stoned than the general population, not that stoned drivers are more likely to be reckless. A controlled study (using actual cars and roads and marijuana) is exactly what is called for if you want to determine the risks of driving under the influence of marijuana.

Call the sample size of 24 insufficient all you want: that work has been published in peer-reviewed journals, and was adopted by the US Department of Transportation as a basis for policy-making. Note that if you get 24 people, pump them full of alcohol, and then administer the same driving test, you'll have no trouble seeing the effects. If marijuana is similarly dangerous, why don't we see a similar outcome? I'm not sure why you're unhappy with a study done in the Netherlands, particularly considering that they have a much more rational, science-based approach to marijuana policy, but note that the study in question was commissioned by the NHTSA (National Highway Transportation Safety Association):

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/misc/driving/driving.htm

Or here's another study from Britain:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2063

This Canadian study found that marijuana *improved* driving performance in some subjects:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/186/4161/317

Many countries and researchers have gone looking for evidence of marijuana's contribution to driving fatalities, and nobody ever seems to find them. That (and the a-priori requirement that research outcomes should bolster anti-marijuana advocacy) is why you end up with wishy-washy statistics that don't apply to actual driving, don't measure marijuana intoxication and/or don't separate out the effects of other drugs.

Anyway, the point is not that it's a good idea to drive while stoned. It can't help your driving, is illegal, and so should be avoided, particularly if you've had anything to drink. But equating stoned driving it to drunk driving, as was done in the OP, is absurd.

 

[cristo]

But equating stoned driving it to drunk driving, as was done in the OP, is absurd.

Driving whilst under the influence of alcohol impairs judgement and thus endangers others. Driving whilst under the influence of marijuana impairs judgement and thus endangers others. Whether one impairs you more than the other is moot.

Oh, and for the record, New Scientist is no longer regarded as a reputable peer-reviewed journal.

 

[Evo]

The information you posted had only 150 drivers, and did not distinguish between "testing positive for" and actually being under the influence of marijuana,

Yes it did, 33% of the drivers were on marijuana only.

Call the sample size of 24 insufficient all you want: that work has been published in peer-reviewed journals, and was adopted by the US Department of Transportation as a basis for policy-making.

Your example was not peer-reviewed, but she did find the peer-reviewed study by the same author which she said "It makes it much clearer that marijuana DOES impair driving (the one linked in the reported post does too, if you actually read it through) to the same extent as alcohol, and the two combined are worse than either alone."

I also linked to the newer NHTSA study that supercedes yours and the conclusion

Panel’s Assessment of Driving Risks: Low doses of THC moderately impair cognitive and psychomotor tasks associated with driving, while severe driving impairment is observed with high doses, chronic use and in combination with low doses of alcohol The more difficult and unpredictable the task, the more likely marijuana will impair performance.

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/People/injury/research/job185drugs/cannabis.htm